Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小,
## (pastp=70.1671, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=71]=1, stp[ipn_0]=69.9036).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::chisq.test(x = c("no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", : 'x' and 'y' must have at least 2 levels
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 2501 | control, N = 1251 | treatment, N = 1251 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 250 | 51.17 ± 13.17 (23 - 75) | 50.68 ± 13.45 (23 - 75) | 51.66 ± 12.92 (28 - 75) | 0.559 |
gender | 250 | 0.327 | |||
f | 204 (82%) | 99 (79%) | 105 (84%) | ||
m | 46 (18%) | 26 (21%) | 20 (16%) | ||
occupation | 250 | 0.711 | |||
day_training | 6 (2.4%) | 2 (1.6%) | 4 (3.2%) | ||
full_time | 29 (12%) | 14 (11%) | 15 (12%) | ||
homemaker | 32 (13%) | 15 (12%) | 17 (14%) | ||
other | 4 (1.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | 3 (2.4%) | ||
part_time | 43 (17%) | 23 (18%) | 20 (16%) | ||
retired | 61 (24%) | 28 (22%) | 33 (26%) | ||
self_employ | 8 (3.2%) | 4 (3.2%) | 4 (3.2%) | ||
shelter | 4 (1.6%) | 4 (3.2%) | 0 (0%) | ||
student | 4 (1.6%) | 2 (1.6%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
t_and_e | 4 (1.6%) | 3 (2.4%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
unemploy | 55 (22%) | 29 (23%) | 26 (21%) | ||
marital | 250 | 0.776 | |||
cohabitation | 2 (0.8%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
divore | 27 (11%) | 15 (12%) | 12 (9.6%) | ||
in_relationship | 6 (2.4%) | 4 (3.2%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
married | 76 (30%) | 35 (28%) | 41 (33%) | ||
none | 117 (47%) | 59 (47%) | 58 (46%) | ||
seperation | 3 (1.2%) | 2 (1.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
widow | 19 (7.6%) | 10 (8.0%) | 9 (7.2%) | ||
edu | 250 | 0.690 | |||
bachelor | 54 (22%) | 24 (19%) | 30 (24%) | ||
diploma | 42 (17%) | 25 (20%) | 17 (14%) | ||
hd_ad | 6 (2.4%) | 4 (3.2%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
none | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
postgraduate | 17 (6.8%) | 9 (7.2%) | 8 (6.4%) | ||
primary | 22 (8.8%) | 9 (7.2%) | 13 (10%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 29 (12%) | 17 (14%) | 12 (9.6%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 66 (26%) | 31 (25%) | 35 (28%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 13 (5.2%) | 6 (4.8%) | 7 (5.6%) | ||
fam_income | 250 | ||||
10001_12000 | 10 (4.0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 7 (5.6%) | ||
12001_14000 | 12 (4.8%) | 4 (3.2%) | 8 (6.4%) | ||
14001_16000 | 12 (4.8%) | 4 (3.2%) | 8 (6.4%) | ||
16001_18000 | 5 (2.0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
18001_20000 | 12 (4.8%) | 8 (6.4%) | 4 (3.2%) | ||
20001_above | 43 (17%) | 26 (21%) | 17 (14%) | ||
2001_4000 | 37 (15%) | 18 (14%) | 19 (15%) | ||
4001_6000 | 31 (12%) | 14 (11%) | 17 (14%) | ||
6001_8000 | 22 (8.8%) | 13 (10%) | 9 (7.2%) | ||
8001_10000 | 20 (8.0%) | 11 (8.8%) | 9 (7.2%) | ||
below_2000 | 46 (18%) | 21 (17%) | 25 (20%) | ||
medication | 250 | 224 (90%) | 112 (90%) | 112 (90%) | >0.999 |
onset_duration | 250 | 15.13 ± 11.18 (0 - 63) | 14.96 ± 11.83 (0 - 56) | 15.29 ± 10.53 (0 - 63) | 0.814 |
onset_age | 250 | 36.04 ± 14.80 (-18 - 72) | 35.72 ± 13.96 (10 - 72) | 36.37 ± 15.65 (-18 - 68) | 0.732 |
diagnosis_schizophrenia | 250 | 50 (20%) | 25 (20%) | 25 (20%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_delusional | 250 | 13 (5.2%) | 7 (5.6%) | 6 (4.8%) | 0.776 |
diagnosis_schizoaffective | 250 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_schizoid | 250 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_transient_psychotic | 250 | 2 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic | 250 | ||||
no | 250 (100%) | 125 (100%) | 125 (100%) | ||
diagnosis_depression | 250 | 138 (55%) | 69 (55%) | 69 (55%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_bipolar | 250 | 24 (9.6%) | 10 (8.0%) | 14 (11%) | 0.390 |
diagnosis_anxiety | 250 | 87 (35%) | 46 (37%) | 41 (33%) | 0.507 |
diagnosis_phobia | 250 | 10 (4.0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 7 (5.6%) | 0.197 |
diagnosis_personality_disorders | 250 | 3 (1.2%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 0.247 |
diagnosis_substance_related_addictive | 250 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_other | 250 | 29 (12%) | 17 (14%) | 12 (9.6%) | 0.323 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 2501 | control, N = 1251 | treatment, N = 1251 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 250 | 3.14 ± 1.21 (1 - 5) | 3.20 ± 1.20 (1 - 5) | 3.07 ± 1.23 (1 - 5) | 0.406 |
recovery_stage_b | 250 | 17.84 ± 3.03 (4 - 24) | 17.88 ± 3.28 (4 - 24) | 17.80 ± 2.78 (9 - 24) | 0.835 |
ras_confidence | 250 | 29.86 ± 5.62 (9 - 45) | 29.69 ± 5.78 (9 - 45) | 30.02 ± 5.47 (9 - 45) | 0.637 |
ras_willingness | 250 | 11.64 ± 2.11 (3 - 15) | 11.62 ± 2.08 (5 - 15) | 11.66 ± 2.14 (3 - 15) | 0.905 |
ras_goal | 250 | 17.36 ± 3.32 (5 - 25) | 17.18 ± 3.30 (5 - 25) | 17.53 ± 3.33 (5 - 25) | 0.413 |
ras_reliance | 250 | 13.24 ± 2.88 (4 - 20) | 13.14 ± 2.81 (5 - 20) | 13.33 ± 2.95 (4 - 20) | 0.614 |
ras_domination | 250 | 9.76 ± 2.45 (3 - 15) | 9.95 ± 2.43 (3 - 15) | 9.56 ± 2.46 (3 - 15) | 0.206 |
symptom | 250 | 30.85 ± 9.83 (14 - 70) | 31.50 ± 10.44 (14 - 70) | 30.21 ± 9.18 (14 - 56) | 0.301 |
slof_work | 250 | 22.06 ± 4.64 (10 - 30) | 22.06 ± 4.44 (12 - 30) | 22.06 ± 4.86 (10 - 30) | 0.989 |
slof_relationship | 250 | 24.92 ± 5.79 (9 - 35) | 24.50 ± 5.77 (9 - 35) | 25.34 ± 5.79 (11 - 35) | 0.252 |
satisfaction | 250 | 20.35 ± 7.25 (5 - 35) | 19.66 ± 7.28 (5 - 35) | 21.03 ± 7.18 (5 - 35) | 0.136 |
mhc_emotional | 250 | 10.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 19) | 10.65 ± 3.79 (3 - 18) | 11.00 ± 3.71 (3 - 19) | 0.459 |
mhc_social | 250 | 15.13 ± 6.02 (5 - 30) | 15.13 ± 6.09 (5 - 30) | 15.13 ± 5.97 (5 - 30) | >0.999 |
mhc_psychological | 250 | 21.71 ± 6.90 (6 - 36) | 21.55 ± 6.89 (6 - 36) | 21.87 ± 6.93 (6 - 36) | 0.715 |
resilisnce | 250 | 16.56 ± 4.44 (6 - 30) | 16.18 ± 4.25 (6 - 30) | 16.94 ± 4.61 (6 - 30) | 0.177 |
social_provision | 250 | 13.54 ± 2.75 (5 - 20) | 13.17 ± 2.70 (5 - 20) | 13.91 ± 2.77 (5 - 20) | 0.032 |
els_value_living | 250 | 16.96 ± 3.18 (5 - 25) | 16.76 ± 3.18 (6 - 25) | 17.15 ± 3.19 (5 - 25) | 0.331 |
els_life_fulfill | 250 | 12.76 ± 3.35 (4 - 20) | 12.41 ± 3.45 (4 - 20) | 13.10 ± 3.21 (4 - 20) | 0.100 |
els | 250 | 29.71 ± 6.03 (9 - 45) | 29.17 ± 6.13 (11 - 45) | 30.26 ± 5.90 (9 - 45) | 0.154 |
social_connect | 250 | 27.27 ± 9.12 (8 - 48) | 27.88 ± 9.05 (8 - 48) | 26.66 ± 9.18 (8 - 48) | 0.293 |
shs_agency | 250 | 14.34 ± 4.99 (3 - 24) | 13.84 ± 5.02 (3 - 24) | 14.85 ± 4.94 (3 - 24) | 0.110 |
shs_pathway | 250 | 15.83 ± 4.19 (3 - 24) | 15.33 ± 4.35 (3 - 24) | 16.34 ± 3.99 (4 - 24) | 0.057 |
shs | 250 | 30.18 ± 8.79 (6 - 48) | 29.17 ± 8.98 (6 - 48) | 31.18 ± 8.51 (7 - 48) | 0.070 |
esteem | 250 | 12.76 ± 1.66 (9 - 20) | 12.80 ± 1.71 (9 - 20) | 12.73 ± 1.60 (10 - 20) | 0.732 |
mlq_search | 250 | 14.72 ± 3.51 (3 - 21) | 14.36 ± 3.58 (3 - 21) | 15.08 ± 3.41 (3 - 21) | 0.105 |
mlq_presence | 250 | 13.38 ± 4.31 (3 - 21) | 13.15 ± 4.26 (3 - 21) | 13.62 ± 4.36 (3 - 21) | 0.396 |
mlq | 250 | 28.10 ± 7.01 (6 - 42) | 27.51 ± 7.05 (6 - 42) | 28.70 ± 6.96 (6 - 42) | 0.183 |
empower | 250 | 19.11 ± 4.47 (6 - 30) | 18.85 ± 4.50 (6 - 30) | 19.38 ± 4.44 (6 - 30) | 0.351 |
ismi_resistance | 250 | 14.36 ± 2.60 (5 - 20) | 14.36 ± 2.52 (6 - 20) | 14.35 ± 2.70 (5 - 20) | 0.981 |
ismi_discrimation | 250 | 11.75 ± 3.10 (5 - 20) | 11.79 ± 3.09 (5 - 20) | 11.70 ± 3.12 (5 - 20) | 0.823 |
sss_affective | 250 | 10.51 ± 3.66 (3 - 18) | 10.40 ± 3.63 (3 - 18) | 10.62 ± 3.71 (3 - 18) | 0.629 |
sss_behavior | 250 | 10.14 ± 3.76 (3 - 18) | 10.18 ± 3.81 (3 - 18) | 10.10 ± 3.72 (3 - 18) | 0.867 |
sss_cognitive | 250 | 8.92 ± 3.84 (3 - 18) | 8.71 ± 3.82 (3 - 18) | 9.12 ± 3.87 (3 - 18) | 0.402 |
sss | 250 | 29.56 ± 10.61 (9 - 54) | 29.29 ± 10.63 (9 - 54) | 29.84 ± 10.63 (9 - 54) | 0.682 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.20 | 0.109 | 2.99, 3.41 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.128 | 0.154 | -0.429, 0.173 | 0.405 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.028 | 0.132 | -0.230, 0.287 | 0.829 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.192 | 0.190 | -0.180, 0.565 | 0.313 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.268 | 17.4, 18.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.080 | 0.379 | -0.823, 0.663 | 0.833 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.128 | 0.238 | -0.595, 0.339 | 0.591 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.968 | 0.345 | 0.292, 1.64 | 0.005 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.7 | 0.503 | 28.7, 30.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.336 | 0.711 | -1.06, 1.73 | 0.637 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.715 | 0.386 | -0.041, 1.47 | 0.065 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.972 | 0.559 | -0.124, 2.07 | 0.084 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.6 | 0.183 | 11.3, 12.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.032 | 0.258 | -0.474, 0.538 | 0.901 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.044 | 0.170 | -0.289, 0.377 | 0.797 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.259 | 0.246 | -0.223, 0.741 | 0.294 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.2 | 0.289 | 16.6, 17.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.344 | 0.409 | -0.457, 1.15 | 0.401 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.453 | 0.247 | -0.032, 0.937 | 0.068 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.352 | 0.358 | -0.350, 1.05 | 0.327 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.262 | 12.6, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.184 | 0.371 | -0.543, 0.911 | 0.620 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.376 | 0.201 | -0.018, 0.770 | 0.063 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.269 | 0.291 | -0.302, 0.840 | 0.357 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 9.95 | 0.215 | 9.53, 10.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.392 | 0.303 | -0.987, 0.203 | 0.197 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.102 | 0.205 | -0.299, 0.503 | 0.618 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.738 | 0.296 | 0.158, 1.32 | 0.013 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 31.5 | 0.877 | 29.8, 33.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.29 | 1.241 | -3.72, 1.14 | 0.300 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.45 | 0.623 | -2.67, -0.224 | 0.021 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.099 | 0.903 | -1.87, 1.67 | 0.913 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.1 | 0.409 | 21.3, 22.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.008 | 0.579 | -1.14, 1.13 | 0.989 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.448 | 0.334 | -0.206, 1.10 | 0.181 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.095 | 0.484 | -0.852, 1.04 | 0.844 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 24.5 | 0.513 | 23.5, 25.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.840 | 0.725 | -0.582, 2.26 | 0.248 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.488 | 0.404 | -0.305, 1.28 | 0.229 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.211 | 0.586 | -0.937, 1.36 | 0.719 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.7 | 0.643 | 18.4, 20.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.37 | 0.909 | -0.414, 3.15 | 0.134 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.23 | 0.472 | 0.301, 2.15 | 0.010 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.058 | 0.683 | -1.28, 1.40 | 0.932 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.6 | 0.336 | 9.99, 11.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.352 | 0.475 | -0.580, 1.28 | 0.459 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.444 | 0.250 | -0.045, 0.933 | 0.077 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.047 | 0.362 | -0.756, 0.662 | 0.897 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.1 | 0.543 | 14.1, 16.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.000 | 0.769 | -1.51, 1.51 | 1.00 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.720 | 0.408 | -0.080, 1.52 | 0.079 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.457 | 0.592 | -0.703, 1.62 | 0.441 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.6 | 0.630 | 20.3, 22.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.320 | 0.891 | -1.43, 2.07 | 0.720 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.11 | 0.457 | 0.216, 2.01 | 0.016 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.120 | 0.662 | -1.42, 1.18 | 0.856 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.2 | 0.387 | 15.4, 16.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.760 | 0.548 | -0.314, 1.83 | 0.166 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.654 | 0.336 | -0.005, 1.31 | 0.053 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.470 | 0.487 | -0.484, 1.42 | 0.336 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.250 | 12.7, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.744 | 0.354 | 0.050, 1.44 | 0.036 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.041 | 0.197 | -0.426, 0.344 | 0.836 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.380 | 0.285 | -0.178, 0.938 | 0.183 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.028 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.8 | 0.284 | 16.2, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.392 | 0.402 | -0.396, 1.18 | 0.330 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.375 | 0.222 | -0.061, 0.810 | 0.093 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.262 | 0.322 | -0.369, 0.893 | 0.416 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.4 | 0.294 | 11.8, 13.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.696 | 0.416 | -0.119, 1.51 | 0.095 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.323 | 0.212 | -0.092, 0.738 | 0.129 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.153 | 0.307 | -0.449, 0.755 | 0.618 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 29.2 | 0.538 | 28.1, 30.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.09 | 0.761 | -0.403, 2.58 | 0.154 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.694 | 0.371 | -0.033, 1.42 | 0.063 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.431 | 0.538 | -0.622, 1.49 | 0.423 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.9 | 0.820 | 26.3, 29.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.22 | 1.159 | -3.49, 1.06 | 0.295 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.683 | 0.590 | -1.84, 0.473 | 0.248 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.26 | 0.855 | -2.94, 0.415 | 0.142 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.8 | 0.445 | 13.0, 14.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.01 | 0.629 | -0.225, 2.24 | 0.110 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.350 | 0.328 | -0.293, 0.993 | 0.287 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.536 | 0.475 | -0.395, 1.47 | 0.261 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.3 | 0.361 | 14.6, 16.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.01 | 0.511 | 0.007, 2.01 | 0.049 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.588 | 0.288 | 0.023, 1.15 | 0.043 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.232 | 0.417 | -0.585, 1.05 | 0.578 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.2 | 0.767 | 27.7, 30.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.02 | 1.085 | -0.111, 4.14 | 0.064 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.935 | 0.560 | -0.163, 2.03 | 0.097 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.779 | 0.812 | -0.811, 2.37 | 0.338 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.024 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.8 | 0.142 | 12.5, 13.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.072 | 0.201 | -0.466, 0.322 | 0.721 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.134 | 0.153 | -0.434, 0.166 | 0.381 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.176 | 0.221 | -0.257, 0.609 | 0.427 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.309 | 13.8, 15.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.720 | 0.437 | -0.136, 1.58 | 0.100 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.727 | 0.299 | 0.141, 1.31 | 0.016 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.809 | 0.433 | -1.66, 0.039 | 0.063 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.379 | 12.4, 13.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.464 | 0.535 | -0.585, 1.51 | 0.387 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.607 | 0.320 | -0.020, 1.23 | 0.059 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.185 | 0.464 | -0.723, 1.09 | 0.690 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 27.5 | 0.618 | 26.3, 28.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.18 | 0.873 | -0.528, 2.90 | 0.176 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.33 | 0.536 | 0.280, 2.38 | 0.014 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.606 | 0.776 | -2.13, 0.916 | 0.436 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 18.8 | 0.405 | 18.1, 19.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.528 | 0.573 | -0.596, 1.65 | 0.358 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.861 | 0.318 | 0.238, 1.48 | 0.007 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.029 | 0.461 | -0.875, 0.932 | 0.950 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.222 | 13.9, 14.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.008 | 0.314 | -0.624, 0.608 | 0.980 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.206 | 0.225 | -0.235, 0.647 | 0.362 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.448 | 0.325 | -0.189, 1.09 | 0.170 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 11.8 | 0.275 | 11.3, 12.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.088 | 0.389 | -0.850, 0.674 | 0.821 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.410 | 0.262 | -0.923, 0.103 | 0.119 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.423 | 0.379 | -1.17, 0.319 | 0.265 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.325 | 9.76, 11.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.224 | 0.460 | -0.677, 1.12 | 0.626 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.321 | 0.241 | -0.792, 0.150 | 0.183 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.606 | 0.349 | -1.29, 0.077 | 0.084 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.2 | 0.333 | 9.52, 10.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.080 | 0.471 | -1.00, 0.844 | 0.865 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.469 | 0.249 | -0.956, 0.019 | 0.061 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.266 | 0.360 | -0.972, 0.440 | 0.461 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.71 | 0.335 | 8.06, 9.37 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.408 | 0.474 | -0.520, 1.34 | 0.390 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.239 | 0.246 | -0.721, 0.244 | 0.333 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.665 | 0.357 | -1.36, 0.035 | 0.064 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 29.3 | 0.937 | 27.5, 31.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.552 | 1.325 | -2.04, 3.15 | 0.677 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.04 | 0.622 | -2.26, 0.177 | 0.095 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.49 | 0.903 | -3.26, 0.280 | 0.100 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.33) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.36e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.99, 3.41], t(451) = 29.47, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.17], t(451) = -0.83, p = 0.405; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.14])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.29], t(451) = 0.22, p = 0.829; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.56], t(451) = 1.01, p = 0.312; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.47])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.88 (95% CI [17.35, 18.41], t(451) = 66.71, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.66], t(451) = -0.21, p = 0.833; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.34], t(451) = -0.54, p = 0.590; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.11])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [0.29, 1.64], t(451) = 2.81, p = 0.005; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [0.10, 0.56])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.69 (95% CI [28.70, 30.67], t(451) = 59.04, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.73], t(451) = 0.47, p = 0.637; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.47], t(451) = 1.85, p = 0.064; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-7.34e-03, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.12, 2.07], t(451) = 1.74, p = 0.082; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.37])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.95e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.62 (95% CI [11.27, 11.98], t(451) = 63.67, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.54], t(451) = 0.12, p = 0.901; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.38], t(451) = 0.26, p = 0.797; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.19])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.74], t(451) = 1.05, p = 0.292; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.37])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.18 (95% CI [16.62, 17.75], t(451) = 59.43, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.15], t(451) = 0.84, p = 0.400; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.94], t(451) = 1.83, p = 0.067; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-9.91e-03, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.05], t(451) = 0.98, p = 0.326; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.14 (95% CI [12.63, 13.66], t(451) = 50.10, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.91], t(451) = 0.50, p = 0.620; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.77], t(451) = 1.87, p = 0.061; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-6.13e-03, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.84], t(451) = 0.92, p = 0.356; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [9.53, 10.37], t(451) = 46.39, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.20], t(451) = -1.29, p = 0.196; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.09])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.50], t(451) = 0.50, p = 0.618; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.16, 1.32], t(451) = 2.49, p = 0.013; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [0.07, 0.55])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.50 (95% CI [29.78, 33.22], t(451) = 35.90, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-3.72, 1.14], t(451) = -1.04, p = 0.299; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.12])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.45, 95% CI [-2.67, -0.22], t(451) = -2.32, p = 0.020; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.27, -0.02])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-1.87, 1.67], t(451) = -0.11, p = 0.913; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.17])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.93e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.06 (95% CI [21.26, 22.87], t(451) = 53.92, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.13], t(451) = -0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = -1.75e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.21, 1.10], t(451) = 1.34, p = 0.179; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.85, 1.04], t(451) = 0.20, p = 0.843; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.07e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.50 (95% CI [23.50, 25.51], t(451) = 47.77, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.58, 2.26], t(451) = 1.16, p = 0.247; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.28], t(451) = 1.21, p = 0.228; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.94, 1.36], t(451) = 0.36, p = 0.719; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.24])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.66 (95% CI [18.40, 20.92], t(451) = 30.58, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [-0.41, 3.15], t(451) = 1.50, p = 0.132; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.23, 95% CI [0.30, 2.15], t(451) = 2.60, p = 0.009; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [0.04, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-1.28, 1.40], t(451) = 0.08, p = 0.932; Std. beta = 8.08e-03, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.91e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.65 (95% CI [9.99, 11.31], t(451) = 31.68, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.28], t(451) = 0.74, p = 0.459; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.93], t(451) = 1.78, p = 0.075; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.66], t(451) = -0.13, p = 0.897; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.18])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.50e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.13 (95% CI [14.06, 16.19], t(451) = 27.84, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.77e-13, 95% CI [-1.51, 1.51], t(451) = -1.14e-12, p > .999; Std. beta = -8.00e-16, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.08, 1.52], t(451) = 1.76, p = 0.078; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.70, 1.62], t(451) = 0.77, p = 0.440; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.82e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.55 (95% CI [20.32, 22.79], t(451) = 34.22, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.43, 2.07], t(451) = 0.36, p = 0.719; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.11, 95% CI [0.22, 2.01], t(451) = 2.43, p = 0.015; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [0.03, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-1.42, 1.18], t(451) = -0.18, p = 0.856; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.17])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.18 (95% CI [15.42, 16.94], t(451) = 41.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.83], t(451) = 1.39, p = 0.165; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-4.94e-03, 1.31], t(451) = 1.95, p = 0.052; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-1.13e-03, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.48, 1.42], t(451) = 0.96, p = 0.335; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.17 (95% CI [12.68, 13.66], t(451) = 52.60, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.05, 1.44], t(451) = 2.10, p = 0.036; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [0.02, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.34], t(451) = -0.21, p = 0.835; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.12])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.94], t(451) = 1.33, p = 0.182; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.76 (95% CI [16.20, 17.32], t(451) = 58.93, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.18], t(451) = 0.97, p = 0.330; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.81], t(451) = 1.69, p = 0.092; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.89], t(451) = 0.81, p = 0.416; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.41 (95% CI [11.83, 12.98], t(451) = 42.20, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.51], t(451) = 1.67, p = 0.094; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.74], t(451) = 1.52, p = 0.128; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.76], t(451) = 0.50, p = 0.618; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [28.11, 30.22], t(451) = 54.23, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.40, 2.58], t(451) = 1.43, p = 0.153; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.42], t(451) = 1.87, p = 0.061; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-5.45e-03, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.62, 1.49], t(451) = 0.80, p = 0.422; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.88 (95% CI [26.27, 29.49], t(451) = 34.01, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-3.49, 1.06], t(451) = -1.05, p = 0.294; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.11])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-1.84, 0.47], t(451) = -1.16, p = 0.247; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.26, 95% CI [-2.94, 0.41], t(451) = -1.47, p = 0.140; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.05])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.84 (95% CI [12.97, 14.71], t(451) = 31.11, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.22, 2.24], t(451) = 1.60, p = 0.109; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.99], t(451) = 1.07, p = 0.286; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.47], t(451) = 1.13, p = 0.259; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.33 (95% CI [14.62, 16.04], t(451) = 42.46, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [7.34e-03, 2.01], t(451) = 1.97, p = 0.048; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [1.81e-03, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [0.02, 1.15], t(451) = 2.04, p = 0.041; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [5.71e-03, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.05], t(451) = 0.56, p = 0.578; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [27.66, 30.67], t(451) = 38.01, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.02, 95% CI [-0.11, 4.14], t(451) = 1.86, p = 0.063; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-0.16, 2.03], t(451) = 1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.81, 2.37], t(451) = 0.96, p = 0.337; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.48) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.99e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.80 (95% CI [12.52, 13.08], t(451) = 90.01, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.32], t(451) = -0.36, p = 0.720; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.20])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.17], t(451) = -0.88, p = 0.380; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.10])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.61], t(451) = 0.80, p = 0.426; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.18e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.76, 14.96], t(451) = 46.52, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.58], t(451) = 1.65, p = 0.099; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [0.14, 1.31], t(451) = 2.43, p = 0.015; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [0.04, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.81, 95% CI [-1.66, 0.04], t(451) = -1.87, p = 0.061; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.01])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.15 (95% CI [12.41, 13.89], t(451) = 34.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.51], t(451) = 0.87, p = 0.386; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.02, 1.23], t(451) = 1.90, p = 0.058; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-4.80e-03, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.72, 1.09], t(451) = 0.40, p = 0.690; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.51 (95% CI [26.30, 28.72], t(451) = 44.55, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.53, 2.90], t(451) = 1.36, p = 0.175; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.33, 95% CI [0.28, 2.38], t(451) = 2.48, p = 0.013; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [0.04, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-2.13, 0.92], t(451) = -0.78, p = 0.435; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.13])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.85 (95% CI [18.05, 19.64], t(451) = 46.49, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.65], t(451) = 0.92, p = 0.357; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [0.24, 1.48], t(451) = 2.71, p = 0.007; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [0.05, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.87, 0.93], t(451) = 0.06, p = 0.950; Std. beta = 6.41e-03, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.21])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.92, 14.80], t(451) = 64.63, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.61], t(451) = -0.03, p = 0.980; Std. beta = -3.23e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.65], t(451) = 0.91, p = 0.361; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.19, 1.09], t(451) = 1.38, p = 0.168; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.79 (95% CI [11.25, 12.33], t(451) = 42.91, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.67], t(451) = -0.23, p = 0.821; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.10], t(451) = -1.57, p = 0.117; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.17, 0.32], t(451) = -1.12, p = 0.264; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.10])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.78e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.76, 11.04], t(451) = 32.00, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.12], t(451) = 0.49, p = 0.626; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.15], t(451) = -1.33, p = 0.182; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.04])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-1.29, 0.08], t(451) = -1.74, p = 0.082; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.02])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.26e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.18 (95% CI [9.52, 10.83], t(451) = 30.53, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.84], t(451) = -0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.23])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.02], t(451) = -1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.26, 5.03e-03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.97, 0.44], t(451) = -0.74, p = 0.460; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.12])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.74e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.71 (95% CI [8.06, 9.37], t(451) = 26.01, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.34], t(451) = 0.86, p = 0.389; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.24], t(451) = -0.97, p = 0.332; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.07])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.66, 95% CI [-1.36, 0.03], t(451) = -1.86, p = 0.063; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.37, 9.30e-03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.25e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.29 (95% CI [27.45, 31.12], t(451) = 31.27, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-2.04, 3.15], t(451) = 0.42, p = 0.677; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.04, 95% CI [-2.26, 0.18], t(451) = -1.67, p = 0.094; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.02])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.49, 95% CI [-3.26, 0.28], t(451) = -1.65, p = 0.099; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 1,455.419 | 1,467.793 | -724.709 | 1,449.419 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 1,458.632 | 1,483.380 | -723.316 | 1,446.632 | 2.787 | 3 | 0.426 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 2,201.572 | 2,213.946 | -1,097.786 | 2,195.572 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 2,195.490 | 2,220.238 | -1,091.745 | 2,183.490 | 12.082 | 3 | 0.007 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 2,734.672 | 2,747.046 | -1,364.336 | 2,728.672 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 2,719.517 | 2,744.265 | -1,353.758 | 2,707.517 | 21.156 | 3 | 0.000 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 1,857.031 | 1,869.405 | -925.516 | 1,851.031 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 1,859.717 | 1,884.465 | -923.859 | 1,847.717 | 3.314 | 3 | 0.346 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 2,259.905 | 2,272.279 | -1,126.952 | 2,253.905 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 2,251.677 | 2,276.425 | -1,119.838 | 2,239.677 | 14.228 | 3 | 0.003 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 2,131.776 | 2,144.150 | -1,062.888 | 2,125.776 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 2,124.542 | 2,149.291 | -1,056.271 | 2,112.542 | 13.234 | 3 | 0.004 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 2,024.355 | 2,036.729 | -1,009.177 | 2,018.355 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 2,014.909 | 2,039.657 | -1,001.454 | 2,002.909 | 15.446 | 3 | 0.001 |
symptom | null | 3 | 3,206.235 | 3,218.609 | -1,600.118 | 3,200.235 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 3,200.309 | 3,225.058 | -1,594.155 | 3,188.309 | 11.926 | 3 | 0.008 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 2,551.257 | 2,563.631 | -1,272.628 | 2,545.257 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 2,553.031 | 2,577.779 | -1,270.515 | 2,541.031 | 4.226 | 3 | 0.238 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 2,747.303 | 2,759.677 | -1,370.652 | 2,741.303 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 2,747.382 | 2,772.131 | -1,367.691 | 2,735.382 | 5.921 | 3 | 0.116 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 2,937.544 | 2,949.918 | -1,465.772 | 2,931.544 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 2,927.975 | 2,952.723 | -1,457.987 | 2,915.975 | 15.569 | 3 | 0.001 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 2,339.384 | 2,351.758 | -1,166.692 | 2,333.384 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 2,339.468 | 2,364.216 | -1,163.734 | 2,327.468 | 5.916 | 3 | 0.116 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 2,787.506 | 2,799.880 | -1,390.753 | 2,781.506 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 2,783.050 | 2,807.798 | -1,385.525 | 2,771.050 | 10.456 | 3 | 0.015 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 2,909.260 | 2,921.634 | -1,451.630 | 2,903.260 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 2,905.219 | 2,929.967 | -1,446.610 | 2,893.219 | 10.041 | 3 | 0.018 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 2,535.210 | 2,547.584 | -1,264.605 | 2,529.210 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 2,524.160 | 2,548.909 | -1,256.080 | 2,512.160 | 17.050 | 3 | 0.001 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 2,094.313 | 2,106.687 | -1,044.157 | 2,088.313 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 2,090.290 | 2,115.038 | -1,039.145 | 2,078.290 | 10.023 | 3 | 0.018 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 2,210.973 | 2,223.348 | -1,102.487 | 2,204.973 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 2,205.206 | 2,229.954 | -1,096.603 | 2,193.206 | 11.767 | 3 | 0.008 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 2,210.796 | 2,223.170 | -1,102.398 | 2,204.796 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 2,206.383 | 2,231.131 | -1,097.192 | 2,194.383 | 10.413 | 3 | 0.015 |
els | null | 3 | 2,750.598 | 2,762.972 | -1,372.299 | 2,744.598 | |||
els | random | 6 | 2,742.085 | 2,766.833 | -1,365.042 | 2,730.085 | 14.514 | 3 | 0.002 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 3,150.367 | 3,162.741 | -1,572.184 | 3,144.367 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 3,142.941 | 3,167.689 | -1,565.471 | 3,130.941 | 13.426 | 3 | 0.004 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 2,598.847 | 2,611.221 | -1,296.424 | 2,592.847 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 2,593.059 | 2,617.807 | -1,290.529 | 2,581.059 | 11.789 | 3 | 0.008 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 2,440.929 | 2,453.303 | -1,217.464 | 2,434.929 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 2,430.538 | 2,455.286 | -1,209.269 | 2,418.538 | 16.391 | 3 | 0.001 |
shs | null | 3 | 3,097.808 | 3,110.182 | -1,545.904 | 3,091.808 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 3,087.796 | 3,112.544 | -1,537.898 | 3,075.796 | 16.012 | 3 | 0.001 |
esteem | null | 3 | 1,669.739 | 1,682.113 | -831.870 | 1,663.739 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 1,674.894 | 1,699.642 | -831.447 | 1,662.894 | 0.845 | 3 | 0.839 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 2,353.350 | 2,365.724 | -1,173.675 | 2,347.350 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 2,352.557 | 2,377.305 | -1,170.278 | 2,340.557 | 6.794 | 3 | 0.079 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 2,498.294 | 2,510.668 | -1,246.147 | 2,492.294 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 2,494.169 | 2,518.917 | -1,241.085 | 2,482.169 | 10.125 | 3 | 0.018 |
mlq | null | 3 | 2,953.526 | 2,965.900 | -1,473.763 | 2,947.526 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 2,950.561 | 2,975.309 | -1,469.281 | 2,938.561 | 8.965 | 3 | 0.030 |
empower | null | 3 | 2,539.793 | 2,552.168 | -1,266.897 | 2,533.793 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 2,530.812 | 2,555.560 | -1,259.406 | 2,518.812 | 14.982 | 3 | 0.002 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 2,068.299 | 2,080.673 | -1,031.149 | 2,062.299 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 2,065.464 | 2,090.212 | -1,026.732 | 2,053.464 | 8.835 | 3 | 0.032 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 2,246.840 | 2,259.214 | -1,120.420 | 2,240.840 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 2,240.828 | 2,265.576 | -1,114.414 | 2,228.828 | 12.012 | 3 | 0.007 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 2,316.703 | 2,329.077 | -1,155.351 | 2,310.703 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 2,307.717 | 2,332.465 | -1,147.859 | 2,295.717 | 14.985 | 3 | 0.002 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 2,339.126 | 2,351.500 | -1,166.563 | 2,333.126 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 2,333.632 | 2,358.380 | -1,160.816 | 2,321.632 | 11.495 | 3 | 0.009 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 2,339.744 | 2,352.118 | -1,166.872 | 2,333.744 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 2,332.684 | 2,357.432 | -1,160.342 | 2,320.684 | 13.060 | 3 | 0.005 |
sss | null | 3 | 3,246.883 | 3,259.257 | -1,620.442 | 3,240.883 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 3,235.532 | 3,260.280 | -1,611.766 | 3,223.532 | 17.351 | 3 | 0.001 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 125 | 3.20 ± 1.21 | 125 | 3.07 ± 1.21 | 0.405 | 0.129 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 109 | 3.23 ± 1.21 | -0.029 | 98 | 3.29 ± 1.20 | -0.222 | 0.702 | -0.064 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 125 | 17.88 ± 3.00 | 125 | 17.80 ± 3.00 | 0.833 | 0.045 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 109 | 17.75 ± 2.92 | 0.072 | 98 | 18.64 ± 2.86 | -0.472 | 0.028 | -0.499 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 125 | 29.69 ± 5.62 | 125 | 30.02 ± 5.62 | 0.637 | -0.117 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 109 | 30.40 ± 5.42 | -0.249 | 98 | 31.71 ± 5.28 | -0.587 | 0.080 | -0.455 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 125 | 11.62 ± 2.04 | 125 | 11.66 ± 2.04 | 0.901 | -0.025 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 109 | 11.67 ± 1.99 | -0.034 | 98 | 11.96 ± 1.96 | -0.238 | 0.290 | -0.229 |
ras_goal | 1st | 125 | 17.18 ± 3.23 | 125 | 17.53 ± 3.23 | 0.401 | -0.187 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 109 | 17.64 ± 3.14 | -0.245 | 98 | 18.33 ± 3.07 | -0.436 | 0.108 | -0.377 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 125 | 13.14 ± 2.93 | 125 | 13.33 ± 2.93 | 0.620 | -0.123 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 109 | 13.52 ± 2.83 | -0.251 | 98 | 13.97 ± 2.76 | -0.431 | 0.244 | -0.303 |
ras_domination | 1st | 125 | 9.95 ± 2.40 | 125 | 9.56 ± 2.40 | 0.197 | 0.256 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 109 | 10.05 ± 2.34 | -0.067 | 98 | 10.40 ± 2.31 | -0.549 | 0.286 | -0.226 |
symptom | 1st | 125 | 31.50 ± 9.81 | 125 | 30.21 ± 9.81 | 0.300 | 0.278 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 109 | 30.05 ± 9.42 | 0.312 | 98 | 28.66 ± 9.15 | 0.333 | 0.284 | 0.299 |
slof_work | 1st | 125 | 22.06 ± 4.58 | 125 | 22.06 ± 4.58 | 0.989 | 0.003 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 109 | 22.51 ± 4.43 | -0.180 | 98 | 22.60 ± 4.32 | -0.219 | 0.886 | -0.035 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 125 | 24.50 ± 5.74 | 125 | 25.34 ± 5.74 | 0.248 | -0.279 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 109 | 24.99 ± 5.54 | -0.162 | 98 | 26.04 ± 5.40 | -0.232 | 0.168 | -0.349 |
satisfaction | 1st | 125 | 19.66 ± 7.19 | 125 | 21.03 ± 7.19 | 0.134 | -0.390 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 109 | 20.89 ± 6.92 | -0.349 | 98 | 22.32 ± 6.72 | -0.366 | 0.134 | -0.407 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 125 | 10.65 ± 3.76 | 125 | 11.00 ± 3.76 | 0.459 | -0.190 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 109 | 11.09 ± 3.62 | -0.239 | 98 | 11.40 ± 3.52 | -0.214 | 0.539 | -0.164 |
mhc_social | 1st | 125 | 15.13 ± 6.08 | 125 | 15.13 ± 6.08 | 1.000 | 0.000 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 109 | 15.85 ± 5.85 | -0.237 | 98 | 16.31 ± 5.70 | -0.387 | 0.570 | -0.150 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 125 | 21.55 ± 7.04 | 125 | 21.87 ± 7.04 | 0.720 | -0.094 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 109 | 22.66 ± 6.77 | -0.327 | 98 | 22.86 ± 6.58 | -0.292 | 0.830 | -0.059 |
resilisnce | 1st | 125 | 16.18 ± 4.33 | 125 | 16.94 ± 4.33 | 0.166 | -0.303 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 109 | 16.83 ± 4.21 | -0.261 | 98 | 18.06 ± 4.12 | -0.448 | 0.034 | -0.490 |
social_provision | 1st | 125 | 13.17 ± 2.80 | 125 | 13.91 ± 2.80 | 0.036 | -0.508 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 109 | 13.13 ± 2.70 | 0.028 | 98 | 14.25 ± 2.64 | -0.232 | 0.003 | -0.768 |
els_value_living | 1st | 125 | 16.76 ± 3.18 | 125 | 17.15 ± 3.18 | 0.330 | -0.237 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 109 | 17.13 ± 3.07 | -0.226 | 98 | 17.79 ± 2.99 | -0.385 | 0.122 | -0.395 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 125 | 12.41 ± 3.29 | 125 | 13.10 ± 3.29 | 0.095 | -0.442 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 109 | 12.73 ± 3.16 | -0.205 | 98 | 13.58 ± 3.07 | -0.302 | 0.051 | -0.539 |
els | 1st | 125 | 29.17 ± 6.01 | 125 | 30.26 ± 6.01 | 0.154 | -0.395 | ||
els | 2nd | 109 | 29.86 ± 5.77 | -0.252 | 98 | 31.38 ± 5.59 | -0.408 | 0.055 | -0.551 |
social_connect | 1st | 125 | 27.88 ± 9.17 | 125 | 26.66 ± 9.17 | 0.295 | 0.277 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 109 | 27.20 ± 8.81 | 0.156 | 98 | 24.72 ± 8.56 | 0.443 | 0.041 | 0.565 |
shs_agency | 1st | 125 | 13.84 ± 4.97 | 125 | 14.85 ± 4.97 | 0.110 | -0.413 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 109 | 14.19 ± 4.79 | -0.143 | 98 | 15.73 ± 4.65 | -0.363 | 0.019 | -0.633 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 125 | 15.33 ± 4.04 | 125 | 16.34 ± 4.04 | 0.049 | -0.470 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 109 | 15.92 ± 3.90 | -0.274 | 98 | 17.16 ± 3.81 | -0.382 | 0.021 | -0.578 |
shs | 1st | 125 | 29.17 ± 8.58 | 125 | 31.18 ± 8.58 | 0.064 | -0.484 | ||
shs | 2nd | 109 | 30.10 ± 8.25 | -0.224 | 98 | 32.90 ± 8.02 | -0.411 | 0.014 | -0.671 |
esteem | 1st | 125 | 12.80 ± 1.59 | 125 | 12.73 ± 1.59 | 0.721 | 0.063 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 109 | 12.67 ± 1.57 | 0.117 | 98 | 12.77 ± 1.55 | -0.036 | 0.632 | -0.090 |
mlq_search | 1st | 125 | 14.36 ± 3.45 | 125 | 15.08 ± 3.45 | 0.100 | -0.322 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 109 | 15.09 ± 3.38 | -0.325 | 98 | 15.00 ± 3.33 | 0.037 | 0.848 | 0.040 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 125 | 13.15 ± 4.23 | 125 | 13.62 ± 4.23 | 0.387 | -0.194 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 109 | 13.76 ± 4.10 | -0.254 | 98 | 14.41 ± 4.02 | -0.332 | 0.251 | -0.272 |
mlq | 1st | 125 | 27.51 ± 6.90 | 125 | 28.70 ± 6.90 | 0.176 | -0.296 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 109 | 28.84 ± 6.71 | -0.333 | 98 | 29.42 ± 6.57 | -0.181 | 0.532 | -0.144 |
empower | 1st | 125 | 18.85 ± 4.53 | 125 | 19.38 ± 4.53 | 0.358 | -0.223 | ||
empower | 2nd | 109 | 19.71 ± 4.38 | -0.363 | 98 | 20.27 ± 4.27 | -0.376 | 0.355 | -0.235 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 125 | 14.36 ± 2.48 | 125 | 14.35 ± 2.48 | 0.980 | 0.005 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 109 | 14.57 ± 2.44 | -0.122 | 98 | 15.01 ± 2.41 | -0.388 | 0.192 | -0.261 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 125 | 11.79 ± 3.07 | 125 | 11.70 ± 3.07 | 0.821 | 0.045 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 109 | 11.38 ± 3.00 | 0.209 | 98 | 10.87 ± 2.95 | 0.425 | 0.218 | 0.261 |
sss_affective | 1st | 125 | 10.40 ± 3.63 | 125 | 10.62 ± 3.63 | 0.626 | -0.125 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 109 | 10.08 ± 3.50 | 0.179 | 98 | 9.70 ± 3.40 | 0.518 | 0.427 | 0.214 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 125 | 10.18 ± 3.73 | 125 | 10.10 ± 3.73 | 0.865 | 0.043 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 109 | 9.71 ± 3.59 | 0.253 | 98 | 9.36 ± 3.49 | 0.397 | 0.483 | 0.187 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 125 | 8.71 ± 3.74 | 125 | 9.12 ± 3.74 | 0.390 | -0.223 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 109 | 8.47 ± 3.60 | 0.130 | 98 | 8.22 ± 3.50 | 0.493 | 0.604 | 0.140 |
sss | 1st | 125 | 29.29 ± 10.47 | 125 | 29.84 ± 10.47 | 0.677 | -0.119 | ||
sss | 2nd | 109 | 28.25 ± 10.03 | 0.225 | 98 | 27.31 ± 9.71 | 0.548 | 0.495 | 0.203 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(413.04) = -0.83, p = 0.405, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.17)
2st
t(435.22) = 0.38, p = 0.702, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.39)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(331.91) = -0.21, p = 0.833, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.83 to 0.67)
2st
t(374.40) = 2.21, p = 0.028, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.10 to 1.68)
ras_confidence
1st
t(308.17) = 0.47, p = 0.637, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.06 to 1.74)
2st
t(346.89) = 1.76, p = 0.080, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.16 to 2.77)
ras_willingness
1st
t(341.15) = 0.12, p = 0.901, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.48 to 0.54)
2st
t(383.66) = 1.06, p = 0.290, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.83)
ras_goal
1st
t(324.81) = 0.84, p = 0.401, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.15)
2st
t(366.76) = 1.61, p = 0.108, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.55)
ras_reliance
1st
t(308.04) = 0.50, p = 0.620, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.91)
2st
t(346.72) = 1.17, p = 0.244, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.31 to 1.22)
ras_domination
1st
t(346.45) = -1.29, p = 0.197, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-0.99 to 0.20)
2st
t(388.65) = 1.07, p = 0.286, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.29 to 0.98)
symptom
1st
t(298.72) = -1.04, p = 0.300, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-3.73 to 1.15)
2st
t(334.29) = -1.07, p = 0.284, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-3.93 to 1.15)
slof_work
1st
t(317.10) = -0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.13)
2st
t(357.90) = 0.14, p = 0.886, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.11 to 1.28)
slof_relationship
1st
t(311.92) = 1.16, p = 0.248, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.27)
2st
t(351.62) = 1.38, p = 0.168, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.45 to 2.55)
satisfaction
1st
t(302.40) = 1.50, p = 0.134, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.42 to 3.16)
2st
t(339.32) = 1.50, p = 0.134, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.44 to 3.29)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(303.95) = 0.74, p = 0.459, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.29)
2st
t(341.38) = 0.61, p = 0.539, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.67 to 1.28)
mhc_social
1st
t(305.43) = -0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.51)
2st
t(343.33) = 0.57, p = 0.570, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.12 to 2.04)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(301.18) = 0.36, p = 0.720, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.07)
2st
t(337.66) = 0.21, p = 0.830, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.63 to 2.03)
resilisnce
1st
t(327.43) = 1.39, p = 0.166, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.84)
2st
t(369.63) = 2.12, p = 0.034, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (0.09 to 2.37)
social_provision
1st
t(311.38) = 2.10, p = 0.036, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.44)
2st
t(350.95) = 3.03, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (0.39 to 1.85)
els_value_living
1st
t(310.71) = 0.97, p = 0.330, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.18)
2st
t(350.11) = 1.55, p = 0.122, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.48)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(300.31) = 1.67, p = 0.095, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.51)
2st
t(336.48) = 1.96, p = 0.051, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.00 to 1.70)
els
1st
t(295.46) = 1.43, p = 0.154, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.58)
2st
t(329.71) = 1.92, p = 0.055, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.04 to 3.07)
social_connect
1st
t(300.12) = -1.05, p = 0.295, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-3.50 to 1.07)
2st
t(336.22) = -2.05, p = 0.041, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-4.85 to -0.10)
shs_agency
1st
t(303.05) = 1.60, p = 0.110, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.23 to 2.25)
2st
t(340.18) = 2.35, p = 0.019, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (0.25 to 2.84)
shs_pathway
1st
t(313.67) = 1.97, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.00 to 2.01)
2st
t(353.78) = 2.31, p = 0.021, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (0.19 to 2.29)
shs
1st
t(301.83) = 1.86, p = 0.064, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.12 to 4.15)
2st
t(338.55) = 2.47, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (0.57 to 5.02)
esteem
1st
t(376.66) = -0.36, p = 0.721, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.47 to 0.32)
2st
t(413.08) = 0.48, p = 0.632, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.32 to 0.53)
mlq_search
1st
t(350.07) = 1.65, p = 0.100, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.58)
2st
t(391.93) = -0.19, p = 0.848, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.83)
mlq_presence
1st
t(322.96) = 0.87, p = 0.387, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.52)
2st
t(364.69) = 1.15, p = 0.251, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.76)
mlq
1st
t(327.60) = 1.36, p = 0.176, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.90)
2st
t(369.81) = 0.63, p = 0.532, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.24 to 2.39)
empower
1st
t(311.31) = 0.92, p = 0.358, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.66)
2st
t(350.86) = 0.93, p = 0.355, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.74)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(360.70) = -0.03, p = 0.980, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.61)
2st
t(400.97) = 1.31, p = 0.192, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.10)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(346.07) = -0.23, p = 0.821, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.85 to 0.68)
2st
t(388.30) = -1.23, p = 0.218, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-1.33 to 0.30)
sss_affective
1st
t(303.52) = 0.49, p = 0.626, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.13)
2st
t(340.81) = -0.80, p = 0.427, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.33 to 0.56)
sss_behavior
1st
t(304.54) = -0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.85)
2st
t(342.16) = -0.70, p = 0.483, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.31 to 0.62)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(302.68) = 0.86, p = 0.390, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.34)
2st
t(339.69) = -0.52, p = 0.604, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.23 to 0.72)
sss
1st
t(291.77) = 0.42, p = 0.677, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.06 to 3.16)
2st
t(324.36) = -0.68, p = 0.495, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-3.64 to 1.76)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(233.45) = 1.61, p = 0.217, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.05 to 0.49)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(220.48) = 3.37, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.35 to 1.33)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(216.51) = 4.17, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.89 to 2.48)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(221.97) = 1.70, p = 0.180, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.05 to 0.65)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(219.32) = 3.11, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (0.29 to 1.31)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(216.49) = 3.06, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.23 to 1.06)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(222.81) = 3.93, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (0.42 to 1.26)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(214.87) = -2.36, p = 0.038, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-2.83 to -0.26)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(218.03) = 1.55, p = 0.243, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.23)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(217.16) = 1.65, p = 0.202, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.53)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(215.51) = 2.59, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.31 to 2.26)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(215.78) = 1.52, p = 0.262, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.12 to 0.91)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(216.04) = 2.75, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.33 to 2.02)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(215.30) = 2.07, p = 0.080, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.94)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(219.75) = 3.19, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.43 to 1.82)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(217.06) = 1.65, p = 0.202, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.07 to 0.75)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(216.95) = 2.73, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.18 to 1.10)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(215.15) = 2.14, p = 0.067, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (0.04 to 0.91)
els
1st vs 2st
t(214.29) = 2.89, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.36 to 1.89)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(215.11) = -3.14, p = 0.004, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-3.16 to -0.72)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(215.62) = 2.58, p = 0.021, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (0.21 to 1.56)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(217.45) = 2.72, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.22 to 1.41)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(215.41) = 2.92, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.56 to 2.87)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(227.56) = 0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.36)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(223.39) = -0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.70 to 0.53)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(219.01) = 2.36, p = 0.038, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.13 to 1.45)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(219.77) = 1.29, p = 0.395, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.38 to 1.83)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(217.05) = 2.67, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.23 to 1.55)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(225.06) = 2.78, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.19 to 1.12)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(222.75) = -3.04, p = 0.005, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-1.37 to -0.29)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(215.71) = -3.67, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-1.42 to -0.43)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(215.88) = -2.82, p = 0.011, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.25 to -0.22)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(215.56) = -3.50, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-1.41 to -0.39)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(213.62) = -3.87, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-3.82 to -1.24)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(222.90) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.23 to 0.29)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(214.39) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.60 to 0.34)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(211.93) = 1.85, p = 0.130, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.48)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(215.33) = 0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.29 to 0.38)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(213.67) = 1.83, p = 0.137, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.03 to 0.94)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(211.92) = 1.87, p = 0.126, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.02 to 0.77)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(215.86) = 0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.30 to 0.51)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(210.92) = -2.32, p = 0.043, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-2.67 to -0.22)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(212.87) = 1.34, p = 0.362, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.21 to 1.11)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(212.33) = 1.21, p = 0.458, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.31 to 1.28)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(211.32) = 2.60, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (0.30 to 2.16)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(211.48) = 1.78, p = 0.154, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.05 to 0.94)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(211.64) = 1.76, p = 0.158, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.53)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(211.19) = 2.43, p = 0.032, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.21 to 2.01)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(213.93) = 1.94, p = 0.106, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.32)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(212.27) = -0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.35)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(212.20) = 1.69, p = 0.186, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.06 to 0.81)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(211.09) = 1.52, p = 0.258, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.09 to 0.74)
els
1st vs 2st
t(210.57) = 1.87, p = 0.125, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.04 to 1.43)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(211.07) = -1.16, p = 0.497, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.85 to 0.48)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(211.39) = 1.07, p = 0.574, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.00)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(212.51) = 2.04, p = 0.085, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (0.02 to 1.16)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(211.26) = 1.67, p = 0.193, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.17 to 2.04)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(218.93) = -0.88, p = 0.763, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.44 to 0.17)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(216.23) = 2.43, p = 0.032, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.14 to 1.32)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(213.47) = 1.90, p = 0.119, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.02 to 1.24)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(213.95) = 2.48, p = 0.028, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.27 to 2.39)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(212.26) = 2.71, p = 0.015, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (0.23 to 1.49)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(217.30) = 0.91, p = 0.724, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.24 to 0.65)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(215.83) = -1.57, p = 0.238, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-0.93 to 0.11)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(211.44) = -1.33, p = 0.367, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-0.80 to 0.15)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(211.55) = -1.88, p = 0.122, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-0.96 to 0.02)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(211.35) = -0.97, p = 0.666, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.72 to 0.25)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(210.17) = -1.67, p = 0.191, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-2.27 to 0.18)